Friends, you may be operating under the misconception that President Donald Trump is the most powerful man in this country, but you would be wrong. That title rightfully belongs to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts -- not because he's the Chief Justice, but because he is the swing vote on the Court, and the Supreme Court, lest we forget, runs the country. Why are hundreds of thousands of "refugees" pouring over our border, and why are we powerless to send them home again? Because John Roberts sided with the Supreme Court's four liberals and declared that the Trump administration can't automatically deny Central Americans the "right" to apply for asylum, and to hang out in America for years while their claims are processed. John Roberts is responsible for that monstrous decision, and no one else. For this reason, and for others, many conservatives are afraid that Roberts, despite his Reaganite roots, may be a turncoat who will frustrate conservative efforts to transform the country and breathe new life into the Constitution. Now, I don't claim to have all the answers, but I was cheered by this intriguing article, which suggests that, although Roberts is cautious by nature, in the end he's still a true conservative -- and the long-term direction of the Court will be one that you and I can celebrate. Let's hope it's true.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/john-roberts-isnt-really-moderate/586273/
I also would like to second the arguments made by Howard Schultz in his recent article about the budget deficit. He's absolutely right that neither party takes our deficit and debt seriously, and both parties seem to be in the business of foisting debt on future generations so they can hand out goodies and freebies in the short term to voters. I sincerely hope Schultz runs, because I happen to agree with Democrats that he will help Donald Trump win re-election, but in addition he might be a valuable part of the national conversation and, like Ross Perot, he might raise some issues that both of the major parties would rather avoid. Good for him!
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/howard-schultz-federal-debt-is-out-of-control-but-no-one-is-doing-anything-about-it
Dr. Waddy: That was some article; it appears not to have been written by a conservative. I share your guarded optimism after having read it.
ReplyDeleteThis process of reversing the left's allout try at creating of the Court a radical rubber stamp enabling law making they will never accomplish in Congress,is tortuous (so to speak) and it is far from decided. The one vote advantage held by the lawful is tenuous. For one thing, I worry about Justice Thomas; he is a heavy set man and they often have heart trouble. Of course if President Trump is not reelected, a radical take over, or at least the renewal of a bloc of four completely politicized, lawless and bigoted leftists is a real possibility. If he is reelected, then final success in reestablishing the rule of law in the Federal gov't will be within reach.
I've long been disgusted with what I term "conservative apologists" (eg. RINOs). "Oh well yes, I'm conservative but I don't want to be
'judgemental'. Let's 'reach out' to our colleagues across the aisle, even though we have the votes to defeat them." No instinct for the jugular, a fault not be seen on the Dem side. I've thought that Roberts, despite a very solid conservative background, was becoming such an apologist. Now I'm not at all sure.
Its apparent he made the consciously disingenuous statement of there not being Trump justices or Obama justices as a public relations ploy, like business executives or school principals fronting politically correct shibboleths in hopes of defusing controversies. That would tend to support the observation that Roberts sees himself as a caretaker for the Court. Is it a bad thing?
A close relative of mine took the LSATs. Some of the mental and logical tests therein were real brain busters. Lawyers who practice especially at Appellate levels must have subtle and powerful intellects featuring superior powers of reasoning , persuasion and clear exposition. That makes it plausible for me that Roberts manifests a mostly conservative legal "constitution"at a pace he thinks appropriate and beneficial.
Dr. Waddy: Fox denied me access. I know very little about Schultz but: might he not appeal to those who think this way -"I like having a businessman as President but Trump is just too much; Schultz may be a more refined Trump". If so he might cost Trump votes (?) Also, didn't Perot help give us the edifying spectacle of Billary bustling in our White House and disgracing themselves, our generation and our public life to this day?
ReplyDeleteI know next to nothing about economics but it seems the National Debt might be a 50 megatonner just waiting to go off and we seem to lack the national will to face that prospect.
Jack, you might be right that Schultz poses a threat to Trump, but I don't see it that way. A business background is about the only thing they have in common. By and large, Schultz is left-leaning (he's a registered Democrat), and more importantly in 2020 it will be, if I'm right, Trump versus the anti-Trump(s). The more anti-Trumps, the better!
ReplyDeleteYes, it's very hard to read Roberts' intentions, but we must HOPE that it's the pace of conservative change that worries him -- not the truth and righteousness of conservatism itself. He may be thinking, "Okay, the end of affirmative action, Obamacare, and Roe v. Wade are all coming down the pike. How can I soften the blow?" We shall see.